Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] 'focus-without-user-activation' permissions policy (Issue #1066)

matatk left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1066)

Hi @siliu1, and thanks for your review request.

We are supportive of this use case, and your proposed approach seems reasonable.

However, it would be really helpful for reviewers if you could include the alternatives that were considered in the explainer, and briefly describe why they were rejected.

We are aware of a few alternative approaches that had been explored (thanks @dandclark for highlighting these):

* The `disallowprogrammaticfocus` attribute. (Described in a [draft explainer](https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/pull/852/files#diff-c3386dd495b92dcbf60ebf1cbfeb2c940418b235b9ff269c1df80672c3130930)).

* The alternative policy name from the same [draft explainer](https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/pull/852/files#diff-c3386dd495b92dcbf60ebf1cbfeb2c940418b235b9ff269c1df80672c3130930). (For this one it does seem logical to use the existing `focus-without-user-activation` name, which we understand was suggested during discussions in the WG.)

* A `sandbox` flag (as per w3c/webappsec-permissions-policy#273).

Please could you add these - and the reasons for rejecting them - to the explainer?

Thanks again to @dandclark for assisting with this review.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1066#issuecomment-2843047744
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1066/2843047744@github.com>